Nyord är ett odiskutabelt faktum

Språkrådets nyordslista 2012 har nyligen publicerats. Rådet registrerar nya ord och fraser i svenskan, liksom nya användningar och betydelser av befintliga uttryck. Flertalet av nyorden har sitt ursprung i stora världshändelser och i nya samhällsfenomen och ny teknik. En del ord är vidareutvecklingar av svenska ordkonstruktioner medan andra nyord har importerats.

Visst kan behovet av ord som memil och ståhjuling diskuteras men samtidigt visar dessa och ord som Tintingate, hen, över- och underklassafari och nomofobi vilka samhällsfenomen som har fått stor uppmärksamhet i medier och folkmun under året.

Nyordslistans publicering genererar årligen omfattande och heta diskussioner gällande de nya ordens riktighet och relevans. Och varje år förundras jag över människors prioritering och fokusering av energi. Hur kan man protestera mot språkets utveckling? Språket kommer givetvis utvecklas oavsett om protester mot Språkrådets nyordslista basuneras ut eller inte. Snacka om felprioritering av energianvändning.

Detta året har nationalistiska åsikter påverkat samhällsdebatten mer än någonsin såväl på nationell som internationell nivå. Jag har förundrats över dessa strömningar ett otal gånger under året, såväl avseende diskussioner i detta som många andra länder, och publiceringen av nyordslistan får mig återigen att reflektera över hur reaktionära och rent av befängda denna typ av åsikter faktiskt är. Många människor värnar mer och mer om mig, mitt och mina och inbillar sig samtidigt att detta mitt och mina är något personen har erhållit och som har uppkommit utan något inflytande från den globala omgivningen. Detta gäller även den konstanta och oundvikliga språkutvecklingen vilken reaktionära ofta har svårt att anamma.

Varför är människor så fruktansvärt rädda för utveckling och för att gå bredvid den kulturellt upptrampade och förutsägbara stigen? Varför inbillar sig människan att det historiskt invanda och obsoleta är det mest stimulerande?

Nyord är ett odiskutabelt faktum. Visst, du kan själv påverka i vilken utsträckning du använder de nya orden och därmed tycka att du har ett visst inflytande över de nya ordens inflytande i samhället. Men du kan aldrig hindra orden från att spridas i samhället om samhället väljer att börja tillämpa dessa. Du är inte samhället. Vi är samhället.

Språktveckling går inte att stoppa. Språkutveckling bör inte heller stoppas. Om detta inflytande stoppas hindras även utvecklingen av samhället. Ett mycket intressant exempel debatterades under 2009 då RFSU införde ett nytt ord för kvinnans mödomshinna, ett ord som anammades av Språkrådet. Följ denna debatt och du kommer att inse vilken avgörande betydelse nya ord har för ett samhälles utveckling.

To emigrate or not to emigrate

The first snow is falling.

Not craving for attention but yet perfectly aware of the beautiful scenery they cause, the complex, white crystals slowly fall to the frozen ground. Despite having experienced the drama for many years, I can stand for hours watching this peaceful process.

The four seasons, when distinctly shown, is one of the most inspiring aspects of this country.

I have, however, always envied people who have a strong connection to another country, being born and raised elsewhere, having relatives abroad or having lived abroad for a long period. These people have always talked about a (second) "homeland" to which they sometime would gladly “return” and genuinely discover.

After 32 years in Sweden, I feel less at home than ever. I was born and raised here. Genealogy has proved that my family is of Swedish descent since way back. The only trans-national event that has historically affected the family seems to be the emigration of some relatives to the U.S. in the 19^th century. The family has had a fixed point, we have not moved during my childhood and I am very grateful for the sense of safety that my parents have given me. Should I not reasonably feel at home here?

Feeling exclusion in your so called home country almost seems to be a taboo. "You've no need to feel left out in this country, you're Swedish, both on paper and in a historical sense" and "it's probably just in your imagination that you’re excluded” are comments I sometimes encounter. How I perceive reality has however very little to do with what I’m supposed to feel.

I've often felt like an odd bird in many contexts. I have always been inspired by the unconventional and untraditional. And I've enjoyed this feeling. It’s the odd birds that add innovation and dynamism to the bird crowd.

"Why be happy when you could be normal?" asks Jeanette Winterson in her new novel. Should I just surrender to my alienation and enclose myself in the little box that many people seem to live in, where you do not seem to care much about the outside world, but only focus on the everyday life. Those who seem to enjoy life the most seem to be those who have leaned back and changed visions for daycare pick ups of their children.

Or are we all outsiders? And the difference between the invisible and visible outsiders is only that the invisible ones put a lid on emotions when they go to work and do not have an outlet for the recurring pondering in the same way as the odd bird?

Doctors and researchers believe that dopamine is applied in the brain when we try new things. This positive substance is also applied to the brain when we fall in love. To return to ones’ "homeland" should bring this kind of positive experience if it is perceived as falling in love with ones “own” country. And to despite the novelty still feel that you somehow belong to the country because of proximity to family or having lived there in the past which gives you a welcoming feeling, will probably also induce a sense of safety. A sense of truly mutual love must be an amazing feeling. I thought I knew what it felt like.

Should I emigrate after finishing my studies or remain in the country? Or realize that I am a life-time student and therefore could leave tomorrow, continuing attending the school of life elsewhere? Would an emigration mean that I "gave up the fight" against the right-winged nationalists that are gaining influence in the Swedish as well as the European politics? Cause the fight is needed. We have to take the fight.

No matter where I decide to move, I will, of course, encounter the same existential issues worldwide. A desire to live with the one you love, to dream with the one you love and to have the opportunity to realize what you dream of. So what does it matter where I go? Maybe I will never arrive if I don’t settle down on my inside?

The incredibly outdated worldview that nationalism is representing, both affecting this country and others, and being visible in news reports and the public discussion, keeps annoying me. You belong to the country or the countries you wish to belong to. End of discussion. Maintaining the concept of the nation-state only contributes to stagnation and contradictions. It is well known that societies develop when being exposed to international and transnational influence. Human beings have migrated during all times. As Dr. Marlou Schrover puts it: “In today's discussions about migration and its consequences many politicians and others seem to suffer from severe amnesia.

Migration is frequently labelled as a recent phenomenon. There are, however, few people in the world who need to go back further than three generations in their family tree to stumble upon a migrating ancestor” (Schrover, 2004).

We were born to move. People have always moved to places where they could find more food, safety and prosperity. These natural desires are not only expressed in traditional migration but also in a world-wide interest of travelling and “experiencing new cultures”. The modern nation-state thinking is contradicting our biological desire to realize our historically, nomadic lifestyle. William H. McNeill states that “the ideal of the ethnically homogeneous nation, fostered by population trends in nineteenth century Europe, is inconsistent with the normal population dynamics of civilization” (McNeill, 1984).

The human beings’ constant need to mark territory is incredibly tiring. In a globalized world governmental affiliation should not affect us so fundamentally as it seems to do. Nationalistic rhetoric often stress the pride of the region. "I am proud to be Swedish”, “proud to be Bolivian”, "God bless America" ​​etc. etc. Even if this pride partly seems to be based on a desire to further develop the region's own well being and sometimes origins from a historical mismanagement of a region, we must realize that nationality is based solely on coincidence. It's only the coincidence that determines your ancestry and where you are born. You can not be proud of coincidence.

I'm not proud to be Swedish. I was Swedish by chance. I am however proud of my values. Values that ​​I share with other Swedes as well as with people of other nationalities.

Sources:

McNeill, William H., (1984), Human Migration in Historical Perspective, Population and Development Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1973159?uid=3738984&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101390901943

Schrover, Marlou (2004-03-23), Migration: A historical perspective, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3557163.stm